Appeal No. 1998-1225
Application 08/542,884
differences identified by appellant between the claimed
invention and Galvin appear to be correctly noted. The
examiner’s finding of anticipation requires that the fact
finder rely on the examiner’s speculation and belief that the
claimed elements are somehow present in the circuit of Galvin.
Anticipation, however, cannot be based upon such speculation
and belief.
Since we agree with appellant that Galvin does not
disclose every element of the claimed invention, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-9. The
examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 relies on the same speculative reading of Galvin
discussed above. Therefore, the examiner has also failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
recited in claims 4, 5, 10 and 11. Thus, we also do not
sustain this rejection of the examiner.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-11 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007